Post navigation

Women Are “Hurting and Fearful” of Trump? — What About Babies’ Anxiety Toward “Pro-Choice”?

Reactions to the defeat of the Left’s darling, Hillary Clinton, are becoming borderline psychotic.1 Today, the day after Trump’s inauguration, many thousands are protesting in the streets of Washington D.C. because women are “hurting and fearful” of him according to a Fox News report.

True, the new President’s public behavior toward women has been less than gentlemanly in numerous instances over the years. Such words and actions were unjustifiably commonplace for generations including the early Baby Boomer years. Could it be that they anticipate Trump would be a greater threat to women in the White House than fellow 1946-born President Clinton and his abuse of women while in office?

Unlikely. From outward appearances, the Trumps’ marriage is a faithful one, not born out of political expediency. It is this writer’s opinion that if there were infidelity, Melania would not stand for it and cover it up as others have said Hillary Clinton did for her husband.2, 3

The concern for having Trump in the White House is unreasonable. What IS reasonable, would be the unborn’s justified fear of the “Pro-Choice” crowd, led by the Clintons, who support of legalized murder via Roe v. Wade. Chemical death and/or dismemberment are the ultimate abuse. Protecting those who hide behind the shield of a Supreme court decision as flawed as the Dred Scott decision4, is the reality that none of the targeted victims will ever be able to have their own protest march for the nation to see. That is something to be upset about.

1 – “Psychotic disorders are a group of serious illnesses that affect the mind. They make it hard for someone to think clearly, make good judgments, respond emotionally, communicate effectively, understand reality, and behave appropriately.

4 – “In March 1857, in one of the most controversial events preceding the American Civil War (1861-65), the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford. The case had been brought before the court by Dred Scott, a slave who had lived with his owner in a free state before returning to the slave state of Missouri. Scott argued that his time spent in these locations entitled him to emancipation. In his decision, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, a staunch supporter of slavery, disagreed: The court found that no black, free or slave, could claim U.S. citizenship, and therefore blacks were unable to petition the court for their freedom. The Dred Scott decision incensed abolitionists and heightened North-South tensions, which would erupt in war just three years later.” http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/dred-scott-case